Current law in New York bans those younger than 14 from using such devices; young people 14 through 17 must have parental consent to artificially tan. California passed an under-18 ban, and Vermont’s legislature recently sent a similar bill to the governor’s desk.

The Cancer Society’s Russ Sciandra pointed to state Department of Health statistics showing a 72 percent increase in the incidence of melanoma from the period 1994-98 to 2004-08 — from 9.2 cases per 100,000 people to 15.8 cases. “The trend is accelerating,” he added.

The bill passed the Assembly last year but failed to make it through the Senate. The Assembly approved it again in January; it’s currently awaiting action on the Senate floor, where it has 15 co-sponsors from both parties — including everyone from the rather pale Sen. David Valesky to the notably ruddy Deputy Leader Tom Libous.

“There are some that remain skeptical, that raised the business concerns,” Sciandra said of last year’s Senate inaction.

He compared the tanning industry’s outreach and lobbying efforts to those undertaken by the cigarette industry: reminding consumers that incidents of grave harm are rare and depend on many biological factors; noting that the product is legal; and arguing that using it is a personal choice.

“We don’t prohibit tobacco, but we don’t allow them to sell it to kids under 18 either — even if they have a note from their mother, unlike tanning,” Sciandra said.

“I don’t think giving people cancer is a viable business model,” said Sciandra, speaking next to a stack of some 8,000 postcards ready for distribution to lawmakers next week.

Recently retired Capital Region dermatologist Judith Mysliborski noted that while melanoma is one of the rarest forms of skin cancer (4 percent), it accounts for 80 percent of the deaths from this category of cancers. She noted that those seeking a youthful glow would likely be chagrined at the “weathered, leathered, haggard skin” developed by many who tan to excess, making them look “much older than their age over time.”

She compared the risk of potentially fatal skin damage to a bank account that hits maturity at $100: A bad sunburn adds a few dollars to the account; perhaps a session at a tanning salon only adds a few cents — but why add to the account if it’s preventable?

Kim Conor of Mechanicville began visiting a tanning salon just after she turned 50 as a way to establish a “base tan” — a concept derided by the doctors on hand — before visiting relatives in the Southwest. After following this habit for about four years, in 2010 she noticed a small black dot on her knee “the size of a pen tip” that turned out to be melanoma.

She described the surgical process that followed as akin to ripping out a tree root.

“I have to think of every move I make now,” she said, describing the care she has to take to avoid even minimal direct exposure to the sun. Conor maintains constant vigilance on any variation on her skin, from the body chart on her home computer to the full-body comparison photographs recommended by her dermatologist (“not a glamorous photo shoot”).

“I need to inform every doctor I visit — such as my eye doctor, my OB/GYN, my primary care doctor, dentist — and even my hairdresser to look for melanoma with every visit, to help me,” Conor said. “When doing my nails, I need to check first to make sure a spot is not growing under a nail.”

Conor said the tanning salon was “a wonderful place to go,” though she now feels anger at an industry that doesn’t do enough to warn the public of the potential dangers.

“It was kind of a stress reliever,” she sad. “Now I have more stress than I can deal with.”